I don't really understand this story. Or rather I don't know the facts, or supposed facts. I do know that it is a big story here in the US, but my exposure to it in the UK has been very limited. I guess I should have kept up with Jack's posts on multiply.
To this extent, as far as this story is concerned, I am a non-American Joe Public, or the Man on the Clapham Omnibus, and as such my views are a hint, a sample, a flavour of how the world at large sees this story.
So this is what I know so far (and this is likely full of errors and omissions):
- Somebody in the administration (unknown) was pissed at somebody else (Mr. X). Mr. X might be a US ambassador to somewhere. He might also be an outspoken critic of the administration. Anyway, someone didn't like him.
- Mr. X has a wife, the unimaginatively titled Mrs. X, who is a CIA agent (as an aside, how cool is that?)
- In order to get at Mr. X somebody in the administration got a White House staffer (Karl Rove) to leak the fact of Mrs. X's employment to two journalists. Or Karl Rove did this on his own initiative.
- The journalists published the story and Mrs. X's 'cover was blown' (a quaint term; is it a camping reference?)
- Somebody investigated the facts surrounding the story and asked the journalists to reveal their source, which they refused to do. It went to court and the judge demanded that the source be revealed. One of the journos complied, the other went to jail and has been there for six weeks.
So that is what I know. Here is what I don't understand:
- Why did the journalists reveal the identity of a CIA spy? What is the national interest here? It looks like national disinterest to me.
- Once one of the journalists revealed the source, why was the other sent to jail?
- Didn't Karl Rove commit a crime by giving the story to the media? If so, what is happening about that?
The media seem to be very hung up on the jailing of one of their own. It reminds me of when a police officer is killed and the police chief says he won't leave in stone unturned in the hunt for the killer. Shouldn't that be the case whoever the victim is?
My other concern this morning is over a girl that is missing in Aruba (I don't know where Aruba is). It's Day 76, or something close to that. Why does this girl get nearly 3 months of coverage?
To begin with I assumed she was the daughter of someone famous, but I am doubting that now, and am plain confused. For sure it is a tragic tale, but other girls must have gone missing since without the merest hint of coverage.
US news media is not for the casual viewer. You either have to watch daily or not at all. Every story seems assumes prior knowledge. This is a scary country and I want to go home.